Take-over Bids

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31906, 6 February 1969, Page 10

Take-over Bids

Sir,—“Skilled Investor’s” comparisons between G.F.M., and Waitaki are faulty. Could I refer to copies of Waitaki’s annual accounts which I have just studied? The following facts are disclosed concerning Waitaki’s export marketing subsidiary: 1965, an undisclosed loss; 1966, a loss of $50,000; 1967, a loss of $7000; 1968, total turnover exceeded $10,000,000: profit $22,128. These are the results of Waitaki’s export marketipg and do not inspire confidence in the Waitaki marketing set-up. —Yours, etc. OBSERVER. ) February 5, 1969. [ Sir, —"Not Joking” must have been kidding when he wrote his letter of January 26, regarding Waitaki’s works. All meat works have to meet the same stringent requirements of the Depart ) | ment of Agriculture and there is little to choose be- [ tween them in hygiene, good housekeeping, etc. However,, there is a lot to choose in i efficiency—Waitaki is about) three times as efficient as C.F.M. in operating, as their average profit over the years works out at three times that of C.F.M. per lamb killed. Can “Not Joking" deny this?, —Yours, etc. SKILLED INVESTOR. I ! February 1, 1969.

Sir, “Skilled Investor” must be joking if he believes! the ridiculous nonsense in his letter of February 1.) First, the C.F.M. directors) have never claimed a “super”! marketing organisation. Sec-! ond. Waitaki have made their I profits purely by killing and processing in spite of his statement that they do so at a price that means a loss. Third, all freezing companies including Waitaki incurred a loss in overseas marketing in 1966-67. Fourth. Waitaki in three years of overseas trading achieved one miserable $22,000 profit on a turnover of $10,000,000 in 1967-68 when other companies including C.F.M. made handsome profits in the hundreds of thousands. —Yours, etc., FACTS, NOT FANTASY. February 5, 1969.